Evidence supporting Maria Caulfield's statement to parliament that the Covid-19 vaccines are "safe and effective" and save lives
Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
mary anne: mccloskey:
acting in her capacity as ‘Dr Anne McCloskey’
5th May 2023
By Freedom of Information Act 2000 via whatdotheyknow.com
maria: caulfield: living woman
doing business as (dba) MARIA CAULFIELD acting as Parliamentary-Under-Secretary-of State-for-Health-and-Social-Care
acting in her capacity as ‘Maria Caulfield’
Department of Health
COVID-19 – ALL evidence for Maria Caulfield’s claim in parliament on Tuesday 13th December that “…the thing that made the biggest difference in combating covid was the introduction of the vaccine…..safe and effective vaccines have underpinned our strategy for living with covid…..in countries with lower vaccination rates, their ability to open up, move on and live with covid was reduced…..vaccines remain our biggest line of defense….all the vaccines used in the UK are safe and effective…..extensive data shows that the vaccine is safe and highly effective in reducing deaths that we sadly saw during the pandemic….I want to put it on the record that covid vaccines have saved tens of thousands of lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of people from being hospitalised….”
WHEREAS ‘Vaccines: Potential Harms’ was debated in the Westminster UK Parliament on Tuesday 13 December 2022
andrew: bridgen: in his capacity as MP stated “The gold standard of understanding the benefit and harm of any drug is the randomised controlled trial. It was the randomised controlled trial conducted by Pfizer that led to UK and international regulators approving the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine for administration in the first place.
Contrary to popular belief, that original trial of approximately 40,000 participants did not show any statistically significant reduction in death as a result of vaccination, but it did show a 95% relative risk reduction in the development of infection against the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus [i.e. virus = SARS-CoV-2 the alleged causative agent for COVID-19].
However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual was only 0.84%. In other words, from its own data, Pfizer revealed that we needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. The World Health Organisation and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have previously stated and made it clear that it is an ethical responsibility that medical information is communicated to patients in absolute benefit and absolute risk terms, which is to protect the public from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.” …
UK Parliament HANSARD Vaccines: Potential Harms Volume 724 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...
Similar findings from: The Lancet ‘COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room’
Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele, Michel Vaillant
Open Access Published: April 20, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00...
WHEREAS ‘Vaccines: Potential Harms’ was debated in the Westminster UK Parliament on Tuesday 13 December 2022
WHEREAS After Pfizer’s CEO albert: bourla: declined to appear before the European Parliament’s special committee on COVID-19 (“COVI”) to answer questions regarding Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine”, janine: small: acting as a senior Pfizer executive and as Pfizer’s’ President of International Developed Markets’ attended a parliamentary hearing on 10 October 2022 in his stead.
rob: roos: in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament MEP from the Netherlands asked janine: small: a simple “yes” or “no” question:
- “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?”
In response to rob: roos;’s question janine: small: on behalf of Pfizer answered:
This removed the entire legal basis for the Covid passport, according to rob: roos: MEP. “This is scandalous. Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others’.”
In a tweet on 11 October 2022 he stated:
“In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.
"Get vaccinated for others" was always a lie.
The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.
The world needs to know….”
Full video and text https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/1579...
WHEREAS in an email excerpt published on 24 October 2004 rob: roos: in his capacity as MEP added:
“Governments worldwide have introduced Covid mandates and passports that had an enormous impact on millions of people. They did so by explicitly arguing that vaccinated people cause less transmission of the virus. Ms. Small's [Pfizer’s President of International Markets] response to my question proves this was an assumption by governments for which no evidence had been provided.”
*https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-... *this entity receives funding from Facebook, Google, etc.
WHEREAS “Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public.
The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to OUTCOME-REPORTING-BIAS that AFFECTS-THE-INTERPRETATION-OF-VACCINE-EFFICACY. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. “
Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2,
this critical appraisal shows:
- “relative risk reduction, 95.1% …
- absolute risk reduction, 0.7%... “
“For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1% … absolute risk reduction, 1.1% …
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.” emphasis added
‘Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials’ Medicina (Lithuania). 2021 Feb 26;57(3):199. doi: 10.3390/medicina57030199.
WHEREAS 08 June 2021 “The full extent of their COVID-19 vaccine indemnification agreements with countries, however, is a closely guarded secret, one that has remained highly confidential — until now. A leaked document … reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements. …” An alleged agreement, reportedly between Pfizer and Albania, was originally posted on Twitter and now is on various websites.’
Safety and efficacy ‘not currently known’
“The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: Both their efficacy and risks are unknown. According to section 5.5 of the contract:
“Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement.”
“Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”
“Leaked Document Reveals ‘Shocking’ Terms of Pfizer’s International Vaccine Agreements."
08 June 2021
WHEREAS as reported by the BMJ on 21 October 2022, NONE of the Phase III trials for COVID-19 vaccines including, but not limited to, Pfizer BNT162, Moderna mRNA-1273, AstraZenica ZAZD1222, etc. were “designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission [person to person] of the virus [SARS-Cov2].”
… “what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”?” …
‘Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us’ by Peter Doshi, associate editor for British Medical Journal BMJ BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4037 (Published 21 October 2020) Cite this as: BMJ
WHEREAS on 02 December 2022 Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech announced “that the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the U.K. has granted a temporary authorization for emergency use for their COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2), against COVID-19. This constitutes the first Emergency Use Authorization following a worldwide Phase 3 trial of a vaccine to help fight the pandemic.”
[The Pfizer press release states the Relative Risk Reduction RRR ONLY that is alleged as the “vaccine efficacy rate”, but does not state the below 1% Absolute Risk Reduction ARR.]
…” In July 2020, Pfizer and BioNTech announced an agreement with the U.K. to supply 30 million doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA-based vaccine, once authorized for emergency use. That agreement was increased to 40 million doses in early October . The delivery of the 40 million doses will occur throughout 2020 and 2021, in stages, to ensure an equitable allocation of vaccines across the geographies with executed contracts. Now that the vaccine is authorized in the U.K., the companies will take immediate action to begin the delivery of vaccine doses. The first doses are expected to arrive in the U.K. in the coming days, with complete delivery fulfilment expected in 2021.”
WHEREAS “Let’s put this in perspective”. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.”
WHEREAS according to the official UK Government’s available MHRA COVID-19 VACCINE-ADVERSE-REACTIONS-&-REPORTS* data as of the 25 November 2021 show:
1,814 TOTAL-FATALITIES / DEATHS reported from COVID-19 VACCINES
1,298,807 TOTAL ADVERSE EVENTS / REACTIONS reported from COVID-19 VACCINES
395,049 TOTAL REPORTS of ADVERSE-EVENTS reported from COVID-19 VACCINES
WHEREAS according to the official UK Government’s latest available MHRA COVID-19 VACCINE-ADVERSE-REACTIONS-&-REPORTS* Report run date: 29 September 2022 Data lock date: 28/09/2022 show:
2,272 TOTAL-FATALITIES / DEATHS reported from COVID-19 VACCINES
1,517,612 TOTAL ADVERSE EVENTS / REACTIONS reported from COVID-19 VACCINES
464,058 TOTAL REPORTS of ADVERSE-EVENTS reported from COVID-19 VACCINES
WHEREAS vaccines are UNAVOIDABLY-UNSAFE-PRODUCTS - the Supreme Court of the United States decided that vaccine manufacturers would be exempt from strict liability as vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe products” in Bruesewitz versus Wyeth 2010
WHEREAS according to a Freedom of Information response, the MHRA receives funding from including, but not limited to the PHARMACEUTICAL-INDUSTRY.
WHEREAS according to a Freedom of Information response, the MHRA currently receives approximately $3 MILLION-DOLLARS of grant funding from the BILL-AND-MELINDA-GATES-FOUNDATION. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
In accordance to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 you are required to provide the following:
.1 As none of the Phase III clinical trials for COVID-19 “vaccines” / gene therapies /jabs including Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZenica Oxford ChAdOx1 that were deployed were designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, severe disease or deaths and as further confirmed by a Pfizer Executive testifying in the European Parliament, these COVID-19 vaccines were not tested on prevention of infection and stopping person to person’ transmission of the alleged SARS-Cov2 virus and as only Relative Risk Reduction was reported on the COVID-19 and not the Absolute Risk Reduction which introduced reporting bias as for the three COVID-19 vaccines mentioned above their Absolute Risk Reduction was below 2%, provide all documents, peer reviewed papers and studies, that enabled maria: caulfield: living woman doing business as (dba) MARIA CAULFIELD Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acting in her capacity as ‘Maria Caulfield’ to claim on in Parliament on 13th December 2022 “all the vaccines used in the UK are safe and effective…..extensive data shows that the vaccine is safe and highly effective in reducing deaths”
.2. The definition(s) along with the time used for each definition for the word “effective” that were used / deployed by maria: caulfield: living woman doing business as MARIA CAULFIELD acting as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
and/or public servants and/or agents for the DEPARTMENT-OF-HEALTH regarding COVID-19 vaccines and / or the COVID-19 “vaccine” deployment including, but not limited to advertising campaigns from 01 March 2020 – 31 December 2022.
3. As safe is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as quote “the amount of exposure that will cause no harm or no damage after exposure” end quote*, provide the definition(s) along with the time used for each definition for the word “safe” that were used / deployed by maria: caulfield: living woman doing business as MARIA CAULFIELD acting as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and/or public servants and/or agents for the DEPARTMENT-OF-HEALTH regarding COVID-19 vaccines and / or the COVID-19 “vaccine” deployment including, but not limited to advertising campaigns from 01 March 2020 – 31 December 2022.
Please also note that my request is not limited to records that were authored by public servants including, but not limited to maria: caulfield: living woman doing business as MARIA CAULFIELD acting as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
and/or agents of the DEPARTMENT-OF-HEALTH or that pertain to work done by public servants and/or agents of the DEPARTMENT-OF-HEALTH.
My request includes any sort of record, for example (but not limited to) any published peer-reviewed study that public servants including, but not limited to maria: caulfield: living woman doing business as MARIA CAULFIELD acting as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and/or agents of the DEPARTMENT-OF-HEALTH has downloaded or printed.
Please provide enough information about each record, so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, where the public may access it).”
This will be used as evidence. The information claimed/requested in accordance to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is of public interest.
Please number your responses 1-2. I require that each item / claim / request to have its own specific individual response.
I do not consent to receiving incomplete, unnecessary, incorrect, misleading or untruthful information or representations within Freedom of Information responses.
I do not consent to the names and job titles of public servants including but not limited to employees, assistant directors, deputy chief medical officers and agents of the Department of Health, the NHS, the Northern Ireland Executive, MLA s, politicians and or regulatory bodies and or being redacted.
The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH exists for one purpose only - to give services to the public and has no other purpose. This is not a gift or altruistic service - it is a public service and is allegedly paid by the people through public money.
I have the reasonable expectation that you, maria: caulfield: a living woman and acting as a public servant in the role of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will honour and adhere to your position of trust, the Seven Principles of Public Life, your duty of care, Ministerial Code of Conduct, common law obligations, statutory obligations and protocols that govern public servants.
The 7 principles of public life are: Honesty; Openness; Leadership; Integrity; Accountability; Objectivity and Selflessness. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely and without ill will, without vexation and without frivolity
With honour and truth
By: mary anne: mccloskey:
All rights Reserved:
All Freedoms Reserved:
Acting in the capacity of Dr Anne McCloskey:
Settler, Executor and Beneficiary for any and all derivatives of / for MARY ANNE MCCLOSKEY:
Without recourse Non-Assumpsit:
cc: To All Whom It May Concern
Dr. Anne Mc Closkey
Dear Dr Mc Closkey,
We apologise for the delay in you receiving a response to your recent FOI
request (our ref:FOI-1451893).
The Department of Health and Social Care is still considering your request
and we will respond as soon as possible.
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care
Dear Dr McCloskey,
Please find attached the Department of Health and Social Care's response
to your FOI request (our ref: FOI-1451893).
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now